Gun Control Loss in Senate Has Democrats Worried About Amnesty

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Associated Press: "In a move that would capitalize on provisions under President Barack Obama's health care law but could cost the federal government millions of dollars, Washington state lawmakers have found a creative way to pass a large chunk of their health care expenses along to Washington, D.C. - and analysts say others are likely to follow suit. The plan threatens to affect the federal budget and the pocketbooks of some part-time workers, as it would push a group of employees out of their current health care plans and into an exchange developed under the Affordable Care Act."

So the shock here, again, is that the AP is reporting this. It's just like yesterday. I don't know if you remember, but The Politico actually reported that amnesty, that the Gang of Eight immigration, they didn't even call it amnesty. The Gang of Eight immigration bill will be a bonanza for the Democrats at the ballot box. They actually reported it. Now, you and I know it. We've been talking about it. We've been asking Rubio and everybody, "Why in the world would you agree to a piece of legislation that creates nine million, minimum, new Democrat voters? Why would you do that?"

"It's not gonna do that. These are conservatives-in-waiting. We'll get to 'em, they believe in free markets."

Well, but they don't. Why else do the Democrats want to do this? If these people are Republicans-in-waiting, the Democrats aren't gonna legalize 'em. If these Hispanics, these illegal citizens, illegal aliens are Republicans-in-waiting or are conservatives-in-waiting, the Democrats wouldn't be interested in giving them amnesty. The Democrats wouldn't be interested in granting them citizenship. The Democrats are salivating over this and we're agreeing with this. We're going along with this and The Politico has a piece yesterday pointing this out. Why? Well, I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why again.

The Democrats defeating Obama's gun control bill in the Senate was an earthquake for Obama. He was livid about that. I think he probably still is. The Democrats were supposed to pass Obama's gun control bill. It was supposed to die in the House where the Republicans run the show. The whole purpose of that bill was written so that the Republicans would never vote for it. That's the truth of the matter. That gun control bill was never intended to become law. That was a campaign issue.

The plan was the Democrats pass it. It sails through the Senate. Then it goes to the House where those mean Republicans, who want people to have as many guns as possible, assault rifles and whatever to shoot anybody they want, that's what the Republicans want, they were supposed to kill it. And then Obama, who wants to win the House for the Democrats in 2014, would have a campaign issue, claiming the Republicans don't care about kids; Republicans don't care about people. They're perfectly fine if people get shot. They love it. The more guns the better. That was gonna be the campaign tactic, but it blew up because the Democrats voted it down, and Obama was ticked.

So I think, to avoid the same thing happening on this Gang of Eight immigration bill in the Senate, the worst thing in the world would be if this thing died in the Senate. This is another one. It's supposed to sail through the Senate, and it's the Republicans who are supposed to stop it, so that Obama and the Democrats campaigning in 2014 can say the Republicans hate Hispanics and all that attending BS: Republicans hate Hispanics, Republicans are racists, Republicans don't like new citizens, whatever. But because the gun control bill lost in the Senate, I think Politico was sending a story out warning these Democrats, like Baucus and other Democrats: You guys had better get your minds right after the gun control bill and not make the same mistake.

So Politico publishes their story and Democrats are supposed to see it, say, "Man, I can't vote against that. I mean, this thing is a bonanza for my party. If I vote against this..." So there must be a relatively significant number of Democrats in the Senate who might not vote for this. I'm just guessing at this. I know it sounds unreasonable and unbelievable. Why would Politico publish the story? That story, without some other hidden back-story explaining it, would torpedo the Democrat effort. This amnesty bill, everybody's saying it has nothing to do with politics. The people out there selling it, the Chuck Schumers and everybody out there selling it, the McCains: "We need to bring these people out of the shadows. There are 11 million great citizens out there, citizens waiting, wonderful people. It's unfair they have to live in the shadows, nothing political about it."

But with The Politico story out there that this thing passing and being signed into law -- I mean, the story said that effectively the Republican Party will cease to exist for a generation, 25, 30 years. The Republican Party will cease to exist if this Gang of Eight immigration bill becomes law. Why publish that? Why give up the game when everybody involved is trying to hide that? Well, there's gotta be a reason for it, because Politico's not trying to help the Republicans here. They certainly aren't interested in that. So it tells me there must be, hard as it is to believe, there is some Democrat reluctance to go along with this amnesty bill in the Senate.